IR 05000397/1986004
| ML17278A606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1986 |
| From: | Rebecca Barr, Johnson P, Toth A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17278A605 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-397-86-04, 50-397-86-4, NUDOCS 8602260718 | |
| Download: ML17278A606 (16) | |
Text
U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report No:
50-397/86-04 Docket No:
50-397 Licensee:
Washington Public Power Supply System P.
O. Box 968 Richland, WA. 99352 Facility Name:
Washington Nuclear Project No.
2 (WNP-2)
Inspection at:
WNP-2 Site near Richland, Washington Inspection Conducted:
January 5 - 23, 1986 Inspectors:
~A. D.
oth Senior Resident Inspector
~/r a~
Date Signed Inspector:
C arr, Resident Inspector (Jan ry 13-23, 1986)
Date Signed Approved by:
P.
H.
nson, Chief e ctor Projects Section
Date Signed Summary:
Ins ection on Januar 5 - Januar
1986 (50-397/86-04)
Areas Ins ected:
Routine inspection by the resident inspectors of control room operations, surveillance program, maintenance program, and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
During this inspection, Inspection Procedures 30703, 42700, 40704, 62703, 61726, 71707, 39701, 92701, and 93702 were covered.
This inspection involv'ed 101 inspection-hours on site by two resident inspectors, including 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br /> during backshift work activities.
Results:
No, violations,"or deviations were identified.
n'n
-
~
n--
r
~ I L 8602260718 8602ii PDR ADDCK 05000397
etc
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
"C. Powers, Plant Manager R. Corcoran, Operations Manager J. Baker, Assistant Plant Manager R. Beardsley, Assistant Operations Manager R. Rebring, Acting Technical Manager-J.
Harmon, Maintenance Manager
-"J. Little, Planning / Scheduling Supervisor V. Shockley, Health Physics / Chemistry Support Supervisor
-"D. Peldman, Plant Quality Assurance Manager H. McGilton," Nuclear Safety Assurance Group Manager
"=J. Peters, Administrative Manager P. Powell, Licensing Manager
"R. Graybeal, Plant Chemistry Manager
>D. Malker, Outage Coordinator
>S. Davison, Complianc'e, Engineer"
':L. Aeschliman, Licensing Engine'er
- "K. Cowan, Plant Technical-Manager
='C. Garren, Operations Engineer
+R. Mertens, QA/QC Compliance Enginee'r
, ll-Personnel in 'attendanc'e at exit meeting l
'The inspectors also interviewed vari'ous control room operators, shift supervisors, shift maiiagers, engineering, quality assurance, and management~personnel'relative,'to activities in progress and records.
I'.
General I
The Senior Resident Inspector and/or the Resident Inspector were on site January 4-6, 9, 10, 12-18, and 19-23',
1986.
Backshift inspections were conducted January 5, 6, and 21.
Regional personnel also visited the site as follows:
Region V Project Inspectors (P. Quails and P. Phelan)
were on site January 6-10.
Region V Health Physics Specialist (C. Sherman)
was on site January 13"17.
Region V Reactor Projects Section 3 Chief (P. Johnson)
was on site January 21-24.
3.
Plant Status The plant, limited by the out of service condition of one recirculation pump, operated at about 72/ power during the month of Januar Jl
~,
,I
I!
[
, ~
r I
I I
II41 I
I IV l
444 ll, VA, 0, ', 'l I
Vr V
'I
4 4-,
QO
1(
li
+4 I I'I v(IVI]
VV'
I I
4 ~
I'4V 1,
,*4
- 4 I r L
II'
Vt I
The manager of the'uclear.
Safety Assurance Group (NSAG) (H. McGilton)
was identified'o,"All the. position of Corporate Operations Assurance Manager.
The'NP-1 Licensing Manger (A. Hosier)
was identified to fill
.', the position of /SAG, manager.
4.
0 erations Verifi'catio'ns
'he resi.dent inspectors reviewed the control room operator and shift manager log books on,a daily basis for this report period.
Reviews were also made of 'the'umper/Lifted Lead Log to verify that there were no conflicts with Technical Specifications.
Events involving unusual
'conditions of equipmentwere discussed with the control room personnel available at: the tim'e of the review and evaluated for potential safety significance.
The licensee.'s adherence to Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO's), particularly those dealing with ESF and ESF electrical alignment, were observed.
The inspectors routinely took note of activated annunciatozs on the control panels and ascertained that the control room licensed personnel'n duty at the time were familiar with the reason for each annunciator and its significance.
The inspectors observed access control, control room manning, operability of nuclear instruments, and availability of on site and offsite electrical power.
The inspectors also made regular tours of accessible areas of the facility to assess equipment conditions, radiological controls, security, safety and adherence to regulatory requirements.
a
~
An inspector observed control zoom activities on Saturday and Sunday mornings of January 4 6 5.
At 8:45 AM of January 5 the operators commenced a speed reduction of the "A" feedwatez pump, anticipating automatic compensating speed increase'f the "B" pump.
However, the
"B" pump tripped, apparently before reaching its overspeed trip point, resulting in a minor plant feedwater flow transient.
Immediate operator actions to reduce recirculation system flow and reactor power assisted in control of the reactor vessel water level.
The inspector observed close coordination of the operating crew to manage the transient and investigate the cause of the event.
This involved the Shift Manager, Control Room Supervisor, and the Shift Engineer.
The function of the Shift Engineer was particularly active in obtaining and reviewing alarm printouts, control diagrams, and instrument responses while the operators and supervisor were tending to the controls and alarm annunciators.
Open, free, inquisitive, and cooperative discussions were observed during the event, and subsequently regarding the cause of the pump trip and corrective actions.
Technical specification considerations were demonstrated.
The inspector interviewed the operations staff regarding reactor water cleanup system high flow and loose parts monitoring system alarms occuring during the event and found the staff knowledgeable in the cause and acceptability of such alarms during this transient.
Return to 71/ power was conducted with full regard to controller mismatch correction prior to manual reset of a recirculation system flow control valve lockup condition.
Liberal use was made of alarm printer information, and process computer on-line monitoring of equipment performance parameters.
The inspector concluded that, the staff performance was thorough and professional during the even d I
f
'a,I
fi
'll II l
b.
During this period the inspectors'ours emphasized low traffic areas of the plant, such as contaminated and radiation zones with controlled access.
Xt was found that housekeeping in such areas was generally poor, with wooden ladders, dirt, and scap materials prevalent.
Additionally, the inspectors found a fire extinguisher which had not had monthly readiness verifications recorded/punched on its control. tag for a three month period.
This extinguisher was in a. contaminated radiation zone.
The above items were brought to licensee management attention, and were identified as indicators that, some areas of low traffic and difficult access had escaped otherwise obvious management attention to housekeeping and fire protection considerations in more visible areas.
Future NRC inspections will focus on conditions in such areas.
(86-04-01)
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Surveillance Pro ram Im lementation The inspectors, ascertained that, surveillance of safety-related systems or components was beingconducted in. accordance with license requirements.
Xn addition to witnessing daily control panel instrument checks, the inspectors observed portions of several detailed surveillance tests by operators and instrument and control technicians.
a.
The inspectors examined current reactor coolant chemistry sampling data for chlorides, pH, and.conductivity.
These were documented in
'proc'edure checklists of QPM-7.4.4.4.1.
Reviewed chemistry parameters, were well'ithin Technical Specification acceptance criteria.
Sample's were taken, on a shift basis in January, although
~ Technical,,Specifications, require such sampling every 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
'ttention to c'o'olant 'chemistiy appeared to be high, with daily
': 'i'nter'est:I by plant'management in'lanning meetings.
)
The inspectors identified a minor records discrepancy involving four instances wherein the chemist 'did not record the required verification',that the latest procedure revision was used.
The records showed, that the shift manager and subsequent reviewers of the, compl'eted record had also'issed noticing that the "Verified Prior To Use" entries had not been signed and dated.
There appeared
to be'o consequence to the'missions in that the proper revision was actually used in 3 cases,,and in the fourth case the difference between revisions was editorial and of no material significance.
These oversights were discussed with plant management, who committed to an audit of= the records in this area and corrective actions.
Licensee actions on this matter will be reviewed during a future inspection.
(86-04-02)
No violations or deviations were identifie L l
'I g
E I
I III
't J
j
't
"I f
C i
II C
~
~
~
~
6.
Monthl Maintenance Observation, Portions of selected safety-related systems maintenance activities were observed.
By direct 'observation'and review of records the inspector determi'ned whether,t'.hese activities were consistent with LCOs; that the proper administra'tive contgol's and'tag-out procedures were followed; and that,'quipment was properly tested before return to service.
a.
The inspector observed'prepar'ations for flushing the modified fuel pool cooling syste';
which involved cleaning of the fuel storage basin, The r'esponsible Technology Department engineer was present and supervising th'e activities.
A procedure had been prepared for the flushing activities.and, approved by the Plant Operations Committee.
The control room staff was aware of activities in progress.
1[
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Iicensee Actions On NRC Issued Information Notices IN-85-97 - Regarding falsification of welding records at another nuclear power site.
The Plant Manager issued a personal memorandum to plant staff highlighting the information notice and the serious potential consequences to an individual, and to the licensee organization, relating to records falsification.
The memorandum was informative and well balanced, and was widely distributed.
The Plant Manager also used this topic as an opportunity to remind the staff of the need for attention to detail in generating plant records.
Management action on this item appeared constructive and appropriate.
8.
Licensee Actions On Previous NRC Ins ection Zindin s The inspectors reviewed records, interviewed personnel, and inspected plant conditions relative to licensee actions on previously identified inspection findings:
a
~
(Open) Followup Item (84-22-02) - Plant procedures contain various errors which indicate inattention to detail, by authors and reviewers.
During this period the inspectors examined over 100 Volume 4 alarm response procedures associated with control room annunciators.
About 5/ of these included various errors which principally appeared to originate from typographical errors.
No significant problems were noted with exception of one procedure that indicated that the specific associated annunciator plate was an inactive blank plate; however, the annunciator plate, itself, was not blank and was associated with ECCS equipment problems.
This was brought to the attention of plant management.
The inspectors noted that, a more aggressive procedure review effort had been in progress during December and Sanuary, with revised
~
~
lg
c h
P t,
h Fll II I
wl
~
~
procedures scheduled for review by the Plant Operations Committee, or a new subcommittee during the next few months.
The effectiveness of the licensee's efforts will continue to be considered in future inspections.
b.
c ~
(Closed) Unresolved Item (85-11-08) - The periodic review of rejected plant modification requests (PMRs), by the Assistant Managing Director for Operations, apparently had never been performed as described in corporate procedure NOS-23.
This item was identified'during the NRC team inspection in April 1985, and the licensee at that time indicated an uncertainty as to
, whether such a review practice would be retained in NOS-23.
The licensee,'s de'cisi'on on this matter was delayed until January 1986, at which time't was concluded that such review requirement would be retained.
The descriptive coversheets for voided PMRs issued since the 'beginning of the PMR program were transmitted to the Assistant Managi'ng Director for Operations by January 16, 1986 memorandum.
This appeared to'e late, but within the criteria of the procedure NOS-23.,
(Closed) Unresolved Item '(85-'30-03) - Erection of temporary scaffolding throughout the plant appeared to introduce risks to safety related equipment under potential seismic conditions.
The licensee implemented additional requirements and training in scaffold erections, including provision of floorboard restraints to assure that planks would not loosen and fall on equipment below.
Specific criteria for additional cross braces were included, based upon review by an engineering department seismic analyst; scaffold manufacturers were also consulted to obtain their limited views on this subject.
Corrective actions appeared appropriate, and resulted in an additional benefit of improved personnel safety from more secure scaffold structures.
d.
(Closed) Followup Item (85-37-04) - There was no defined program for considering effects of cold weather on plant equipment prior to arrival of such weather conditions.
The licensee issued plant procedure PPM-1.3.37 to formalize consideration of cold weather protection preparations.
The procedure was limited to specific operating staff responsibilities for checking specific drains and trace heating circuits on equipment and in building areas.
Although it did not specifically address reviews of cold weather related outstanding problem reports, maintenance work requests and pending design changes, such aspects were to a great degree encompassed by the system of tagging which identifies work requests in progress on individual equipment items.
Such tags will be identifiable by the various operator equipment walkdowns required by the operations procedur I W '
1, r:q r
1t /
il 1'
I J
'I
9.
Mana ement Meetin The inspectors met with the Plant Manager approximately weekly during this period, to discuss inspection finding status.
On January 23, 1986 the inspectors met, with the Plant Manager and members of his staff to discuss the inspecton findings during this perio 'I
4 tlI, "
Sd k
4 I
I II
'
IIt
I I
y
)
~ t
~
FE8 26 >986 Docket No, 50-397/$ (P O Washington Public 'Power'upply System P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, Washington, 99352, e
r Attention:
Mr. G.
C. Sorensen, Manager
Regulatory Programs-f Gentlemen:
Subject:
NRC Inspection at WNP-2-This refers to the. routine inspection conducted by Messrs.
P.
M. (}ualls and P. Phelan of this office on January 6,
1986 to February 7, 1986, of activities authorized by NRC License No. NPF-21 and to the discussion of our findings held by Mr. Quails with members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the enclosed inspection report.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
k No violations of NRC requirements were identified within the scope of this inspection.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a),
a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Should you hav'e any questions concerning this inspection we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-397/86-01
Sincerely, A. E. Chaf ee, Chief Reactor Projects Branch cc w/enclosure:
C.
M. Powers, WPPSS P. L. Powell, WPPSS R. B. Glasscock, WPPSS J.
D. Martin, WPPSS G. E. Doupe, Esq.,
WPPSS W.
G.
Conn, Burns 6 Roe State of WA N.
S. Reynolds, Esq.,
Bishop, Liberman, bcc:
RSB/Document Control Desk (RIDS)
J. Martin; B. Faulkenberry; G.
Cook RV Pguhlls:dh PPhel P
on 2/ &/86 2/e2t9 /86 2/2. /86 Cook, Purcell 6 Reynolds Resident and Project Inspector AC affee 2/g(g /86
P
Pp, II'
l I
r I E,l
'I
<<E
Il